Hyman Rosen wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Got it now? > > No. I still fail to understand what you find shocking > about the citation of Nimmer.
Go and drop am email to Nimmer et. al. asking whether a copyright license is a contract or not. Let us know about his response. http://www.fsf.org/news/wallace-vs-fsf "What is there left to test? The GPL is a software license, it is not a contract." Professional lawyers hired to defend FSF (REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION, INC) to dismiss for failure to state a claim: "Plaintiff's mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because the Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the terms of an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the ^^^^^^^^ contract controls." ^^^^^^^^ The court didn't examine the GPL contract but dismissed nevertheless (disclaiming jurisdiction). "The final judgment in Wallace v. Free Software Foundation, Inc. constitutes a void judgment under Seventh Circuit precedent. Judge Tinder granted dismissal [Red Hat and Novells Supp. App. at 12] pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted although the reason given was lack of antitrust injury (lack of standing). In the Seventh Circuit, since the decision in Frederiksen v. City of Lockport, 384 F.3d 437 at 438 (7th Cir. 2004), issues of standing are required to be dismissed pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter-jurisdiction." LOL. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
